Every week, Richard Clark and Ben Bartlett sit back and discuss the posts of the previous week on Christ and Pop Culture, acknowledge and respond to the big issues in popular culture, and give a sneak peak at the week ahead.

We love feedback! If you’d like to respond you can comment on the website, send an email to christandpopculture@gmail.com, or go to our contact page. We would love to respond to feedback on the show, so do it now! Subscribe to us in iTunes by clicking here. While you’re at it, give us some good iTunes feedback! We’ll love you forever!

Here is my response to your criticisms of my view on Romans 7. First of you insist that this view is nowhere else held by Paul. I believe Galatians 5:17 is saying this.

Secondly, I believe that Paul’s use of the present tense in this section, verse the past tense throughout the previous chapters, signifies an experience he is having as he writes this.

Thirdly, Paul says he desires to do what is right. We know that those who desire to honor God are those who have been saved, not those who are unregenerate. So I believe this reflects the struggle of Paul as a Christian.

Fourthly, While it is dangerous to interpret scripture by personal experience, your own confession is that we struggle with sin. This passage reflects that struggle.

Fifthly, That some will abuse the analogy is hardly a convincing defense of its inadequacy.

That’s my response in a nut shell. Hope it helps.

http://www.benbartlett.blogspot.com Ben Bartlett

David,

As I said, this is probably something for everyone to research and decide. Hopefully you’ve had a chance to look at some of the arguments made by Moo and Schreiner and others, I’m definitely curious for your thoughts.

Galatians 5 is a good example, but notice that overall it strongly emphasizes the freedom of the Christian nature, suggesting that those controlled by the sinful nature are not Christians at all (verse 1, 18, 21). Again, I’m not disagreeing with you that Christians struggle with sin- I’m disagreeing with a metaphor that suggests that the sin nature gains control of us and thus absolves responsibility.

Present tense has a certain way of communicating in English, but it’s somewhat different in Greek. I won’t pretend to know Greek, but it’s fairly widely accepted that all three options are acceptable given the text.

There are dozens of examples showing that the unregenerate can desire to do what is right. A non-Christian cannot please God, that is true, but they can desire to.

Again, I have no argument that we struggle with sin. I am simply saying that the entire New Testament, and especially Paul’s theology, promotes the idea that salvation frees us from slavery to sin. Romans 7 seems like a contradiction of that metaphor, as well as a poorly placed argument in the structure of Romans 1-8. However, if it is him discussing himself before Christ or as a pursuer of the law, it makes perfect sense.

I’m not saying the abuse of the analogy by a few shows it to be inadequate. I’m arguing that CORRECT use of this analogy (if one were to accept the post-Christian argument) leads to contradiction with the rest of Pauline theology on the sin nature. For this reason, we need to examine which is incorrect.